If you think about this, it is not a defensible statement. Sure, PCs still have a large collection of niches that nothing has supplanted - but you are ignoring the huge number of niches which have disappeared. You probably have a computer in your pocket right now with approximately the same power as a late-80s Cray. It has almost entirely wiped out the social aspect of the PC - email, IM, web forums, video and music sharing, etc. The PC games market is slowly losing ground to mobile.
Will there always be a market for powerful desktops (workstations)? Sure, I think so. Or maybe I lack imagination. But right now I think things like video editing, rendering, CAD, software development, and data analysis are safe. It's also not hard for me to imagine mobile processors eventually getting good enough for those fields, however. At that point, it will be more cost-effective to just do your work on a machine with souped-up mobile guts. Fast forward 10 years - why would anyone spring for a low-volume x86 chip when the ARM 10 in your pocket can be cheaply repurposed in a "desktop" for your video, CAD, or development work? Hell, even data analysis might be something better farmed out to a server somewhere... I already do this when I need more oomph than my workstation provides.
Intel should be worried - economies of scale are what won them the desktop, and x86 could easily be the next SPARC or Alpha or PA-RISC or MIPS or...
I mean, there's certainly no moral case against it (unless they lie about it). But I know for me, it would make the product less desirable - I'm not really interested in listening to advertisements - if I listen to a playlist, it's generally to introduce myself to music that comes from a source that shares my tastes. This is the same reason I tend to listen to WXPN (U of Penn radio) rather than commercial radio - it seems like every day I'm making a note of something I hear on that station.
It depends on what you mean by "big guys". If you mean companies openly selling influence, sure - that's easy. If you mean the actual big guys in the record industry, then no - they won't be successful. Nothing will ever stop a rep from Sony quietly getting in touch with a popular playlist creator and working out an arrangement. Now that I think about it, I guess I prefer the company openly selling influence...:)
This is considered really bad practice in software
What is? And by who?
one of the primary problems with Linux adoption on the desktop
That problem is multi-faceted, so forgive me if I'm skeptical if you claim that some development practice is "one of the primary problems". It's not like you can point to another desktop using another practice that successfully competes against Windows. The closest would be Mac, and it only survived because MS needed it to. Chrome OS (which is Linux, BTW) is putting on a good show, but the shell is very limited - really only launching a web browser... and one that looks just like the Windows version, at that.
NO ONE who would be a retail Linux customer knows what systemd is and they shouldn't need to know.
Maybe, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. You could say the same thing about Windows services and the services control manager, but they occasionally need to be screwed with. At least you have the option of which "services control manager" you use. The path of least resistance is to leave the default one in place. Windows has an advantage here in that their "systemd" is older and has better GUI tools. But it is still confusing and opaque to newbies.
is representative of the Linux community
Agreed, the majority of the community is definitely not focused on clueless users clicking stuff. It's a system made by developers for developers. Clueless users are better off sticking to consumer-focused, commercially-developed flavors of Linux like Android or ChromeOS. People who need a powerful computer (mechanical design, artists, movie editors, animators, etc) and who are not developers will often find frustration in FOSS. Developers targeting these people will often find frustration in FOSS. Developers targeting other developers love FOSS.
Why people still don't understand why Linux is a failure as a desktop OS is beyond me.
Because it's not? It makes the people who put their time into it happy. It also makes clueless users happy via Android and ChromeOS. I guess it would be fair to say that Ubuntu has failed, because they more or less explicitly say they want to build a Windows-replacement. But I don't think that is the goal of the desktop Linux community in general - their goal is to build a "free" desktop that suits their own needs, and in that regard there are literally hundreds of success stories. And Google in particular has been stunningly successful with bringing Linux to the masses, pretty much owning the education market and making a commercially successful desktop (well, laptop) OS that your parents literally cannot fuck up.
Actual scheme I've encountered in real life: 1. Get "government cheese" (any kind of food from government assistance). 2. Feed government cheese to white rats. 3. Sell white rats to labs. 4. Profit!
Linux - even the mainstream distros - aren't as seamless as Windows for desktop use... no disagreement from me there. I use Linux desktop every day for work, but it's in a VM and I restrict myself to only the applications I need to run. But I disagree that Linux is destroying itself - you are assuming that the developer running the fork would otherwise be contributing to the mainstream distro. I think that is a faulty assumption - the disagreement with the mainstream distro itself may be what is motivating the developer to work on the problem at all. And if that developer's solution actually works out and is embraced, the mainstream distro can fold the change back in because it is all open source. Sometimes what you say is true - a one man show is likely to fold... but you can generally avoid this by steering clear of one-man shows. And bad political decisions in the mainstream distros? Well, it's not like Microsoft doesn't have politics or make bad decisions in their "distribution", and when they do you are stuck. The move from XP to 7, or 7 to 10 is more traumatic than any jump from one Linux distro to another. At least with enough finegaling you can usually wrestle Linux back into your old workflow, running even 1990s-era applications using Motif if you so desire. Even Debian's much maligned switch to systemd can be changed.
But unlike when Windows makes a poor GUI decision [cough, Windows 8, cough], you aren't stuck with it. Every "feature" you mention is addressed by someone who shares your distaste. Don't like Debian's decision to go with systemd? People forked it and made Devuan. Don't like Ubuntu's choice in GUI? Use Mint or Kubuntu.
By the way, I use FreeBSD because it has no-worries support for ZFS, but I don't think it makes a great desktop unix. And to be honest, I find myself making Linux VMs inside of FreeBSD's bhyve for certain software where Linux has better support. I'd probably switch back over to Linux if btrfs matures or if ZFS support gets a little more integrated (which I think is not going to happen).
Well, I mean, they have a track record of doing both of those things. So no, they can't really escape distrust and cynicism no matter what they do. Their only out is to slowly regain trust - which I think they are doing. But they dug their hole - don't feel bad that they need to work hard to scratch back out.
As for whether the price should be based on the marginal unit production cost
Absolutely not my argument. The cost should be whatever the market will bear. Unfortunately for this company, anyone can make even low-volume injection molded silicone rubber for well under a buck. Hell, you could 3D print this thing for around $5. That means competitors that will undercut their high $12 price. I mean, it's a hook...
But counterfeiting is freeloading
Agreed, and Amazon was in the wrong. They seem to have fixed the listing, but if people are allowed to sell generics under brand-name listings, that is a huge problem.
Are you talking about windowing environments? I don't know what lawsuit you are referring to, but Apple isn't what kept OS2 from succeeding. Or GEOS. Or Amiga. Or X Windows. Honestly I'm having trouble coming up with a dead soldier by the hand of Apple rather than Microsoft. Apple barely survived itself.
It's a little of both. There is definitely a problem when someone is selling a branded product and a competitor jumps on the same listing with an unbranded knockoff and sells it as genuine. That is bad on Amazon. It's also a problem when you are trying to sell a silicon rubber hook for $12 in anything resembling a competitive environment.
I actually hate the program that Amazon runs with its "partners" like Elevation. It's something of a puzzle now to try and find the cheapest version of what you are looking for on Amazon, because they really direct you toward their overpriced advertisers. The irony is that most of them are importing cheap shit from China and then rebranding them at twice the price. With enough Google and Amazon search kung fu you can usually find a much cheaper alternative (same product, unbranded), but one that is obfuscated by Amazon's search. One trick is to google image search the product images, since half of these clowns don't even take their own pictures - they just photoshop their logo on the stock images from China.
This kind of talk is why trade wars (and wars in general) start in the first place. Everyone gets focused on who would "win", when in fact even the "winner" gets hurt. Trade, done properly, can benefit both parties. Trade wars, consequently, hurt both parties.
I get it - everyone has different standards. But the streaming formats have surpassed OTA TV now, and really aren't half bad. Sure, a HD 4k Blu-Ray is really gorgeous on a nice TV... but shows on Amazon and Netflix in 4k HD also look really nice. Maybe not as nice, but still better than anything available 5 years ago in any format. We just watched Planet Earth 2 on Netflix and it was jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
Well, yes, because you are defining something that has no effect on you to be a "problem". It might be, but it's not your problem.
In a few generations they will know exactly how to tweak people to get them to do things they wouldn't normally do.
They already do that. Advertising would be the most obvious example. But if you think the big corporations have more control over us now compared to when they controlled the 3 major TV networks and the one or two local newspapers, well let's just say we disagree.
I don't know infosec from hookers and blow, but I can tell you that a Chromebook in the hands of your children (or older parents, for that matter) is pretty darned sweet. Kids try very hard to fuck things up - even Android tablets are not immune. But the most involved thing I've ever had to do on one of the Chromebooks is to uninstall a naughty extension. They are limited, but I really don't care if Google watches my kids do their homework or monitors how many variations of the Tide Pod Challenge they watch. Eventually they'll probably want a Mac or Windows machine, but for now it is family IT guy bliss.
Livery cabs in New York were long illegal, but operated anyway out in the boroughs because people would have tarred and feathered City Hall if they stopped them - yellow cabs are a rarity out there except at the airports and stadiums. Hell, sometimes they'll refuse to take you out there from Manhattan after you get in! A few years ago, they made the "boro cabs" legal so long as they don't make both the origin and destination within Manhattan.
I'm out in the 'burbs now, so my cabbing days are behind me. Like you, I'm middle aged and when I lived in NYC I used to hail on the street... Uber was new and it was kids stuff:) I was lucky enough to live in Manhattan, but I constantly heard people from the boroughs complaining about the cabs. I've used Uber a few times when my car was in the shop and it had the following advantages over cabs: - You could see where all the cars were on your phone so that you know the taxi dispatcher isn't bullshitting you when he says 20 minutes (they always say 20 minutes!). - The car is clean and well maintained - The price is low and up-front - You pay more during peak times (bad), but get instant service in return (good)
I also used it once from the airport (I usually take the train but came in too late) and it was cheaper than a yellow cab.
Where in the world did I mention anything being perfect? It wasn't perfect before and it certainly isn't perfect now. But without pressure from Uber, it would not have changed at all. Even before Uber, the livery cabs were hacking away at the outer boroughs because catching a yellow cab out there was impossible. It got so common that they simply made it legal. These people will not change without pressure, and they are not your friend.
Then I've described it poorly, because what I am suggesting is nothing like how it works today.
There is absolutely no version of an Uber-like with medallions, at least not in NYC. The only people happy with the yellow cab system are established cab companies and people lucky enough to live in the right parts of Manhattan. For people in the outer boroughs, the livery cabs were a fact of life long before Uber. Uber is not popular because they are a beloved company, they are popular because the old service sucked hard and did not invest in improved dispatch technology.
I'm glad they did - they have shown what a good, modern taxi service can look like. They would have stood no chance at all against the entrenched interests. This isn't a good vs. evil thing, it's more like a flawed system vs. flawed entity fight. The good news is that both the system and Uber have moved in a positive direction as time went on.
I hate to mention it, since it is such a buzzword at the moment - but electronic taxi medallions might actually be a decent use of a blockchain.
Slashdot Mirror
but nothing has supplanted the PC
If you think about this, it is not a defensible statement. Sure, PCs still have a large collection of niches that nothing has supplanted - but you are ignoring the huge number of niches which have disappeared. You probably have a computer in your pocket right now with approximately the same power as a late-80s Cray. It has almost entirely wiped out the social aspect of the PC - email, IM, web forums, video and music sharing, etc. The PC games market is slowly losing ground to mobile.
Will there always be a market for powerful desktops (workstations)? Sure, I think so. Or maybe I lack imagination. But right now I think things like video editing, rendering, CAD, software development, and data analysis are safe. It's also not hard for me to imagine mobile processors eventually getting good enough for those fields, however. At that point, it will be more cost-effective to just do your work on a machine with souped-up mobile guts. Fast forward 10 years - why would anyone spring for a low-volume x86 chip when the ARM 10 in your pocket can be cheaply repurposed in a "desktop" for your video, CAD, or development work? Hell, even data analysis might be something better farmed out to a server somewhere... I already do this when I need more oomph than my workstation provides.
Intel should be worried - economies of scale are what won them the desktop, and x86 could easily be the next SPARC or Alpha or PA-RISC or MIPS or ...
I mean, there's certainly no moral case against it (unless they lie about it). But I know for me, it would make the product less desirable - I'm not really interested in listening to advertisements - if I listen to a playlist, it's generally to introduce myself to music that comes from a source that shares my tastes. This is the same reason I tend to listen to WXPN (U of Penn radio) rather than commercial radio - it seems like every day I'm making a note of something I hear on that station.
It depends on what you mean by "big guys". If you mean companies openly selling influence, sure - that's easy. If you mean the actual big guys in the record industry, then no - they won't be successful. Nothing will ever stop a rep from Sony quietly getting in touch with a popular playlist creator and working out an arrangement. Now that I think about it, I guess I prefer the company openly selling influence... :)
This is considered really bad practice in software
What is? And by who?
one of the primary problems with Linux adoption on the desktop
That problem is multi-faceted, so forgive me if I'm skeptical if you claim that some development practice is "one of the primary problems". It's not like you can point to another desktop using another practice that successfully competes against Windows. The closest would be Mac, and it only survived because MS needed it to. Chrome OS (which is Linux, BTW) is putting on a good show, but the shell is very limited - really only launching a web browser... and one that looks just like the Windows version, at that.
NO ONE who would be a retail Linux customer knows what systemd is and they shouldn't need to know.
Maybe, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. You could say the same thing about Windows services and the services control manager, but they occasionally need to be screwed with. At least you have the option of which "services control manager" you use. The path of least resistance is to leave the default one in place. Windows has an advantage here in that their "systemd" is older and has better GUI tools. But it is still confusing and opaque to newbies.
is representative of the Linux community
Agreed, the majority of the community is definitely not focused on clueless users clicking stuff. It's a system made by developers for developers. Clueless users are better off sticking to consumer-focused, commercially-developed flavors of Linux like Android or ChromeOS. People who need a powerful computer (mechanical design, artists, movie editors, animators, etc) and who are not developers will often find frustration in FOSS. Developers targeting these people will often find frustration in FOSS. Developers targeting other developers love FOSS.
Why people still don't understand why Linux is a failure as a desktop OS is beyond me.
Because it's not? It makes the people who put their time into it happy. It also makes clueless users happy via Android and ChromeOS. I guess it would be fair to say that Ubuntu has failed, because they more or less explicitly say they want to build a Windows-replacement. But I don't think that is the goal of the desktop Linux community in general - their goal is to build a "free" desktop that suits their own needs, and in that regard there are literally hundreds of success stories. And Google in particular has been stunningly successful with bringing Linux to the masses, pretty much owning the education market and making a commercially successful desktop (well, laptop) OS that your parents literally cannot fuck up.
Actual scheme I've encountered in real life:
1. Get "government cheese" (any kind of food from government assistance).
2. Feed government cheese to white rats.
3. Sell white rats to labs.
4. Profit!
Linux - even the mainstream distros - aren't as seamless as Windows for desktop use... no disagreement from me there. I use Linux desktop every day for work, but it's in a VM and I restrict myself to only the applications I need to run. But I disagree that Linux is destroying itself - you are assuming that the developer running the fork would otherwise be contributing to the mainstream distro. I think that is a faulty assumption - the disagreement with the mainstream distro itself may be what is motivating the developer to work on the problem at all. And if that developer's solution actually works out and is embraced, the mainstream distro can fold the change back in because it is all open source. Sometimes what you say is true - a one man show is likely to fold... but you can generally avoid this by steering clear of one-man shows. And bad political decisions in the mainstream distros? Well, it's not like Microsoft doesn't have politics or make bad decisions in their "distribution", and when they do you are stuck. The move from XP to 7, or 7 to 10 is more traumatic than any jump from one Linux distro to another. At least with enough finegaling you can usually wrestle Linux back into your old workflow, running even 1990s-era applications using Motif if you so desire. Even Debian's much maligned switch to systemd can be changed.
But unlike when Windows makes a poor GUI decision [cough, Windows 8, cough], you aren't stuck with it. Every "feature" you mention is addressed by someone who shares your distaste. Don't like Debian's decision to go with systemd? People forked it and made Devuan. Don't like Ubuntu's choice in GUI? Use Mint or Kubuntu.
By the way, I use FreeBSD because it has no-worries support for ZFS, but I don't think it makes a great desktop unix. And to be honest, I find myself making Linux VMs inside of FreeBSD's bhyve for certain software where Linux has better support. I'd probably switch back over to Linux if btrfs matures or if ZFS support gets a little more integrated (which I think is not going to happen).
Well, I mean, they have a track record of doing both of those things. So no, they can't really escape distrust and cynicism no matter what they do. Their only out is to slowly regain trust - which I think they are doing. But they dug their hole - don't feel bad that they need to work hard to scratch back out.
As for whether the price should be based on the marginal unit production cost
Absolutely not my argument. The cost should be whatever the market will bear. Unfortunately for this company, anyone can make even low-volume injection molded silicone rubber for well under a buck. Hell, you could 3D print this thing for around $5. That means competitors that will undercut their high $12 price. I mean, it's a hook...
But counterfeiting is freeloading
Agreed, and Amazon was in the wrong. They seem to have fixed the listing, but if people are allowed to sell generics under brand-name listings, that is a huge problem.
Are you talking about windowing environments? I don't know what lawsuit you are referring to, but Apple isn't what kept OS2 from succeeding. Or GEOS. Or Amiga. Or X Windows. Honestly I'm having trouble coming up with a dead soldier by the hand of Apple rather than Microsoft. Apple barely survived itself.
It's a little of both. There is definitely a problem when someone is selling a branded product and a competitor jumps on the same listing with an unbranded knockoff and sells it as genuine. That is bad on Amazon. It's also a problem when you are trying to sell a silicon rubber hook for $12 in anything resembling a competitive environment.
I actually hate the program that Amazon runs with its "partners" like Elevation. It's something of a puzzle now to try and find the cheapest version of what you are looking for on Amazon, because they really direct you toward their overpriced advertisers. The irony is that most of them are importing cheap shit from China and then rebranding them at twice the price. With enough Google and Amazon search kung fu you can usually find a much cheaper alternative (same product, unbranded), but one that is obfuscated by Amazon's search. One trick is to google image search the product images, since half of these clowns don't even take their own pictures - they just photoshop their logo on the stock images from China.
But then it won't have the brand name obnoxiously embossed down the front!
They are charging $12 for an injection molded silicone rubber hook.
This kind of talk is why trade wars (and wars in general) start in the first place. Everyone gets focused on who would "win", when in fact even the "winner" gets hurt. Trade, done properly, can benefit both parties. Trade wars, consequently, hurt both parties.
So now documentaries are not a valid form of entertainment? Amazing.
There are some really nice Blu-Ray rips up on usenet, though.
I get it - everyone has different standards. But the streaming formats have surpassed OTA TV now, and really aren't half bad. Sure, a HD 4k Blu-Ray is really gorgeous on a nice TV... but shows on Amazon and Netflix in 4k HD also look really nice. Maybe not as nice, but still better than anything available 5 years ago in any format. We just watched Planet Earth 2 on Netflix and it was jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
Maybe he was a douche, but I'm sure glad he did that.
You're part of the problem.
Well, yes, because you are defining something that has no effect on you to be a "problem". It might be, but it's not your problem.
In a few generations they will know exactly how to tweak people to get them to do things they wouldn't normally do.
They already do that. Advertising would be the most obvious example. But if you think the big corporations have more control over us now compared to when they controlled the 3 major TV networks and the one or two local newspapers, well let's just say we disagree.
I don't know infosec from hookers and blow, but I can tell you that a Chromebook in the hands of your children (or older parents, for that matter) is pretty darned sweet. Kids try very hard to fuck things up - even Android tablets are not immune. But the most involved thing I've ever had to do on one of the Chromebooks is to uninstall a naughty extension. They are limited, but I really don't care if Google watches my kids do their homework or monitors how many variations of the Tide Pod Challenge they watch. Eventually they'll probably want a Mac or Windows machine, but for now it is family IT guy bliss.
Right, but not like what I was proposing - which would be more fluid, efficient, and flexible enough to work with new technology.
Livery cabs in New York were long illegal, but operated anyway out in the boroughs because people would have tarred and feathered City Hall if they stopped them - yellow cabs are a rarity out there except at the airports and stadiums. Hell, sometimes they'll refuse to take you out there from Manhattan after you get in! A few years ago, they made the "boro cabs" legal so long as they don't make both the origin and destination within Manhattan.
I'm out in the 'burbs now, so my cabbing days are behind me. Like you, I'm middle aged and when I lived in NYC I used to hail on the street... Uber was new and it was kids stuff :) I was lucky enough to live in Manhattan, but I constantly heard people from the boroughs complaining about the cabs. I've used Uber a few times when my car was in the shop and it had the following advantages over cabs:
- You could see where all the cars were on your phone so that you know the taxi dispatcher isn't bullshitting you when he says 20 minutes (they always say 20 minutes!).
- The car is clean and well maintained
- The price is low and up-front
- You pay more during peak times (bad), but get instant service in return (good)
I also used it once from the airport (I usually take the train but came in too late) and it was cheaper than a yellow cab.
Where in the world did I mention anything being perfect? It wasn't perfect before and it certainly isn't perfect now. But without pressure from Uber, it would not have changed at all. Even before Uber, the livery cabs were hacking away at the outer boroughs because catching a yellow cab out there was impossible. It got so common that they simply made it legal. These people will not change without pressure, and they are not your friend.
That is basically how it works today.
Then I've described it poorly, because what I am suggesting is nothing like how it works today.
There is absolutely no version of an Uber-like with medallions, at least not in NYC. The only people happy with the yellow cab system are established cab companies and people lucky enough to live in the right parts of Manhattan. For people in the outer boroughs, the livery cabs were a fact of life long before Uber. Uber is not popular because they are a beloved company, they are popular because the old service sucked hard and did not invest in improved dispatch technology.
I'm glad they did - they have shown what a good, modern taxi service can look like. They would have stood no chance at all against the entrenched interests. This isn't a good vs. evil thing, it's more like a flawed system vs. flawed entity fight. The good news is that both the system and Uber have moved in a positive direction as time went on.
I hate to mention it, since it is such a buzzword at the moment - but electronic taxi medallions might actually be a decent use of a blockchain.